Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	power_n	spiritual_a	1,510	5	6.4164	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50697	Observations on the acts of Parliament, made by King James the First, King James the Second, King James the Third, King James the Fourth, King James the Fifth, Queen Mary, King James the Sixth, King Charles the First, King Charles the Second wherein 1. It is observ'd if they be in desuetude, abrogated, limited, or enlarged, 2. The decisions relating to these acts are mention'd, 3. Some new doubts not yet decided are hinted at, 4. Parallel citations from the civil, canon, feudal and municipal laws, and the laws of other nations are adduc'd for clearing these statutes / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1686 (1686)	Wing M184; ESTC R32044	446,867	482

run if that offer will hinder the incurring the irritancy for these years seing a Debitor may in Law pay before his day come and what if it be such a Prestation as must be performed yearly 8. If the Vassal will amit his Feu for not offering where he had a pretext to doubt who was his true Superiour and what he is to do in that case So much use the Lords to favour the Vassal against such severe irritancies that a Retour bearing in the first part of it an irritancy for not payment of the Feu-duty si petatur tantum they allowed the Vassal to purge though in the posterior part of the Retour these words were omitted in the Clause irritant it self February 18. 1680. Earl of Mar contra his Vassals Like to this irritancy was that of the Civil Law whereby non solutio pensionis per biennium in civill Emphiteusi per triennium in Emphiteusi Ecclesiastica efficiebat ut Emphiteuta a jure suo caderet by the Civil Law the irritancy mora in not payment was not purgeable but by the Canon Law it was In Tacks also with us the not payment of a Tack-duty for two years or terms infers an irritancy November 23. 1609. Murray contra Nisbit March 9. 1611. Seton of Baro contra Seton of Pitmedden which is also conform to the Civil Law l. 56. ff locati THis Act is Explain'd crim pract tit Usury BY the 18 Act 1 Par. Ja. 6. The bearing and shooting with Culverings or Daggs without the Kings Licence is forbidden under the pain of losing the Right Hand and that Act is here Ratifi'd and thereto is added Confiscation of Moveables and by the Act 6 Par. 16 Ja. 6. It is appointed that the Contraveeners of these Acts may be pursu'd either before the Council or the Criminal Court and when they are pursu'd before the Council it is provided that they shall not lose the Right Hand It may be argu'd from this Act that where there are two punishments appointed by two different Laws the last is not added to the first but either it antiquats the first or else either of the two can be only regularly inflicted for else this Act needed not say s●●a that the ane pain shall not stop nor stay the other From that 6 Act 16 Par. It may likewise be observ'd that the Secret Council are not Judges competent to Life and Limb such as the amputation of the Right Hand By the Lex Julia It was lawful to carry Arms without Rome but not in the Town but they were every where thereafter Discharg'd Tit. 46. lib. 11. C. ut armorum usus inscio principe interdictus sit BY this Act is Ratifi'd an Act made at Dundee by the King His Nobility Council and Estates which was an Act of the Convention of Estates for the Convention of Estates ordinarly considered the matter of Coinage nor needed that a Parliament because Coinage is a part of the Prerogative and by the Estates there were mean'd some of every Estate taken by the King for advice From this Act it was urg'd in the Lord Hattons case That 1. By this Act it is clear that we had a different Standard from England which is to be eleven pennie fine 2. That it was lawful to melt down current forraign Coyn because this Act allows it to be us'd as Bullion Nota This is the first Act that mentions the General of the Mints Office as different from the rest BY this Act it is clear that the Convention of Estates made Acts also discharging the Transportation of Wool and the like and this Act as to Wool is again Ratifi'd but a power is allow'd to the Exchequer to Transport Wool contrary to this Act Act 40 Par. 1 Sess. 1 Ch. 2. But even this Act discharges only bypast Licences but not Licence for the future for these are allow'd even for Wool by the 254 Act of this same Parliament BY this Act Customs are declar'd to be due to His Majesty of all that is brought in from forraign Nations and by the 27 Act Sess. 3 Par. 1 Ch. 2. The ordering and disposal of Trade with forraigners is declared to be His Majesties sole Prerogative and therefore some think His Majesty may impose upon forraign Commodities what he thinks convenient for since he may discharge the Trade if He pleases it seems to follow that He may burden it as He pleases By this Act an a b c. of the Customs is to be put upon all Commodities that is to say a particular index of the several Customs imposed upon every several Commodity is ordain'd to be made according to the Letters of the Alphabet and this has varied in several ages the present a b c. being made by order of the Parliament 1661. vid. statut David 2. cap. 12. num 3. where this priviledge as to paying of Customs is formerly declar'd and by the Canon Law this was likewise declar'd lawful to Princes vid. perez ad lib. 10. C. tit 18. num 13. l 5. C. de jure fisci where it is said officialibus v●lentibus ea capere debet acquiescere From these words of this Act Albeit it cannot be deny'd that His Majesty is a free Prince of a Soveraign power havand al 's great Liberties and Prerogatives be the Laws of this Realm and priviledge of His Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentat whatsoever It is observable that our Kings are here acknowledged to be absolute and Soveraign Monarchs as is likewise more fully declar'd by the 1 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. In which it is said Whom the hail Estates of their bounden duty with maist hearty and faithful affection humbly and truly acknowledges to be Soveraign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governor over all Persons Estates and Causes both Spiritual and Temporal within His said Realm By neither of which Acts I conceive our Kings are so absolute as that they have a Tyrrannick or Despotick power but that they are so absolute as that they have power to do every thing that is just and reasonable though they be not thereto empowered by particular Acts of Parliament and therefore they are ill Subjects and worse Lawyers who allow the King to do nothing but that for which he can shew an Act of Parliament since his being an absolute Monarch implyes this innate Power and therefore it follows by a better consequence when any thing is contraverted that the King may do the thing in controversie being reasonable if his power be not as to that point restrained by a particular Act of Parliament It is likwise very observable that this power of absolute Monarchy does not flow from the people but is his own Right for no Act of Parliament grants the King any Prerogative but only declares by way of humble acknowledgement what his Prerogatives were principibus says Tacitus summum rerum judicium dii dederunt subditis obsequii gloria relicta est lib.

said to be no more when they make but a part of the Parliament of Great-Britain for Scotland cannot be called Britain nor a part of a Parliament cannot be called a Parliament no more than the Commissioners for the North of Scotland can be called the Parliament of Scotland but how our Commissioners could sit in the Parliament of Great-Britain by vertue of their former Commissions I see not and therefore it seems to be both fit and just that the Commissioners of Shires and Burrows should be sent home to their respective Constituents to crave their advice and consent in so weighty and comprehensive an Affair nam quod omnes tangit ab omnibus debet approbari It may be likewise contended that this Great Determination of Uniting both Parliaments requires at least the full assent of the Members of both Parliaments and that though the Parliament had power to alter its own Fundamentals yet if any one dissent the Union of both Parliaments must stop for both in Law and Reason the power of making Laws and the Right to retain or resign Priviledges are two different things the one is a Legislative Power which is regulated by plurality of Voices the other is founded upon Dominion or Property and is not subject to Suffrage no more than other Properties are for as every Member has Right so his Right cannot be taken away from him without his own consent though all these who are in the Society with him should renounce what is theirs in re pari melior est conditio prohibentis in re communi nemo dominorum jure quicquam sacere potest invito altero L. Sabinus ait 28. ff com divid thus if the Members of a Society were by Law free from Impositions though all the Society save one should submit to pay yet plurality would not in that case oblige the Refuser and if all who had interest in a Commonty should condescend to Resign their Right therein in favours of another yet if one were refractory that one would not be prejudged by the consent of all the remanent partners whence it seems consequential that as the Parliament cannot Debar any Member from sitting in Parliament so that if one Member by advice from his Constituents oppose the Union of Parliaments it could not be carry'd by plurality for what ever Reason militats why plurality should not oversway in the one does likewise militat in the other and if the right of every Member is given as the cause why he cannot be debar'd from sitting Why should not the same Right empower him much more to stop the total alteration of the Parliament even as a man cannot be Debar'd from using a Commonty It will likewise operat that the Commonty cannot be altered in its Nature without his consent and the Right of these who sit in Parliament is as much prejudg'd by extinguishing the being of a Parliament as by debarring them from sitting or Voicing in it Our Shires and Burghs have Right to be Represented in no Parliament save that of Scotland and therefore if the Commissioners had power to overturn the being of the Parliament of Scotland they could have debar'd our Shires and Burghs from being Re-presented in the Parliament of Great-Britain seing they could pretend no Right to sit there so that it seems either plurality of Voices may exclude any particular Member and may retrinch that Member Or else by the same Reason no plurality can establish an Vnion of both Parliaments and if our Parliament could by plurality of Voices overturn the Fundamentals and destroy the very being of our Parliament How shall it be possible to secure our Parliament when it is joyn'd in with the Parliament of England into one Parliament of Great-Britain so as that the Parliament of Great-Britain may not by the plurality of Voices likewise overturn any Fundamentals that shall be condescended on but that the Fundamental Constitution and priviledges of Parliament are not subject to Suffrage and cannot be abrogated nor innovated without the universal consent of all its Members and Commissioners may be clear likewise from many Instances for it is most certain that the Parliament as now Constitute could not by any Statute Ordain that there should be no more Parliaments or resign over their Parliamentary power in the hands of the Council nor could they Transmit the Power they possess in favours of their own Heirs or exclude any of the Three Estates and sure if Fundamentals be not subject to plurality of Voices the power of Uniting of Parliaments and suppressing of Monarchies is not for these comprehend all other Priviledges and Fundamentals and if the priviledges of one of the Three Estates cannot be altered by plurality I see not how the priviledges of all the Three can be and we have seen Parliaments in the last age do such irregular things that the succeeding Parliaments have been forc'd not only to abrogat their Laws but even to find that they had exceeded their power which implyes that it was not arbitrary King IAMES the sixth Parl. 18. THis Act Declares His Majesties Royal Prerogative by way of acknowledgement without any new Concession in these words They all in a voluntar humble faithful and united heart acknowledge His Majesties Soveraign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledge of His Crown over all Estates Persons and Causes and Confirms to His Majesty His Imperial Power and whatever Soveraign Authority any of His Predecessors had and Casses annuls and abrogates all any way done to the prejudice of His Authority any manner o● way so that it seems that all former Acts of Parliament lessening any way the Royal Power are hereby abrogated By this Act likewise the Estates of Parliament promise to maintain defend and advance the Life Honour Soveraign Authority Prerogative Royal and priviledge of His Crown with their Lives Lands and Goods to the outmost of their power But because this Act was too general therefore by the 2 3 4 and 5. Acts of the first Parliament Charles the Second His Majesties Royal Prerogatives in the choice of the Officers of State Counsellours and Judges in Calling and Dissolving of Parliaments and making of Laws in making of Peace and War and ordering the Militia c. are expresly acknowledged and Ratified and by the second Act of the second Session of the first Parliament All endeavours to restrain His Royal Person to Depose or Suspend Him and all endeavours tending thereto are Declared Treasonable and all stirring up of the People to the hatred or dis●ike of His Royal Prerogative are punishable in manner therein mentioned and by the 27 Act of the 3 Sess. of the 1 Par. Ch. 2. His Majesty is Declared by His Prerogative Royal To have the only Power of Ordering all Trade with Forraigners Nota This is the first Act that mentions the word Prerogative which was formerly call'd the Priviledge of the Crown and therefore this Act mentions both the Old and the New Words by asserting

His Majesties Prerogative and Priviledge of the Crown BY this Act Bishops are not so much restored to their Offices as it is Declar'd that it was never mean'd by His Majesty that the Estate of Bishops was to be suppressed Their sitting in Parliament being by this Act Declar'd to be one of the Fundamentals of the Nation But by this Act their Benefices are only Restored to them which were much impaired And though by the 114 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. General and Synodal Assemblies and Presbytries are thereby Ratifi'd yet Episcopacy is not thereby abrogated expresly By this Act the King is Declar'd to be Soveraign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Persons Estates and Causes both Spiritual and Temporal within this Realm And by the 1 Act Par. 2 Ch. 2. It is asserted and Declared That His Majesty hath the Supream Authority and Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical within this His Kingdom and that by vertue thereof the Ordering and Disposal of the External Government and Policy of the Church doth properly belong to His Majesty and His Successors as an inherent Right to the Crown and that His Majesty and His Successors may Settle Enact and Emit such Constitutions Acts and Orders concerning the Administration of the external Government of the Church and the persons employed in the same and concerning all Ecclesiastical Meetings therein as they in their Royal Wisdom shall think fit There having been great Debates about the wording this part of the Act some Members of Parliament pressing to have it without any Restriction and others though very Loyal pressing it might be Restricted to the Calling and Dissolving of Ecclesiastick Meetings and External Government only Lightoun Bishop of Dumblane was at last trusted by the Commissioner who has drawn it very Cautiously for the Church though our blinded Fanaticks think otherwise For First It is Founded upon the former Old Statute and after repeating that Statute it is said It is therefore Enacted to shew that it was not Design'd that this Act should exceed the former and old Supremacy 2. The Prerogative is restricted to Government and not only so but to the External Government and even as to this External Government the King has only the Ordering and D●sposal of it and the Administration of it by the next Clause so that the Doctrine of the Church nor the internal part of the Government falls not at all under the Kings power by vertue of his Supremacy that is to say He can neither Admit nor Depose nor Administrat Sacraments though He may Discharge a Bishop or Minister to Preach and this is that which was allow'd by the Primitive Church to their Emperours Thus Constantine that Great and first Christian Emperour is approv'd by all the Fathers for setling thus the Marches betwixt the Ecclesiastick and Civil Jurisdiction Euseb. lib. 4. de vit Constant. vos quidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eorum quae intus in ecclesia sunt agenda ego vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eorum quae extra sunt episcopus sum a Deo constitutus and that the Administration of the Sacraments and these other things quae intus sunt belong not to the Civil Magistrat is acknowledg'd by the 69 Act Par. 6 Ja. 6. Wherein it is acknowledg'd that the Jurisdiction of the Kirk consists in the Preaching of the Word the Correction of Manners and the Administration of the Sacraments In which Act three things are observable 1. That the Act tells they derive their Jurisdiction from the King which is as to the external part for no man can think they Derive their power of Administrating the Sacraments from the King though from Him they Derive the Faculty of having the External Face of a Church without which that could not be enjoy'd 2. Though the Church has the Correction of Manners yet the King may regulat these as we see in the very next Act for keeping the Sabbath and which seems to have been made the next Act to this for to clear the meaning of that part of this Act. 3. Though the Preaching of the Word is Declar'd to be a part of the Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction yet that relates only to the Matters of Faith to be Preach'd as to which Ministers are to be judg'd by Church Judicatures but if they Preach what encroaches on the Secular power they are to be judg'd by the King and those Deriving Power from Him conform to the 129 Act Par. 8 Ja. 6. This Supremacy in cases Ecclesiastick seems to have been ever the proper Right of Secular Princes and Haedeus the Great Canonist repet in cap. novit de jud num 145. Though a Roman Catholick does acknowledge That nemini dubium est quin in primitiva Ecclesia de rebus personis ecclesiasticis jus dixerint which will very clearly appear to any who will Read the first thirteen Titles of the first Book of Justinians Codex in which he ordains amongst other things vim legum obtinere Ecclesiasticos canones a quatuor synodis Nicena Constantinopolitana prima Ephesina prima Chalcedonensi expositos confirmatos and I find that the Supremacy is in England thus Established under the Reign of Henry the eighth That the King and His Heirs and Successors should be taken and accepted as the only Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England and should have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown of that Realm as well the Title and Stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminencies Jurisdictions c. to the said Dignity of Supream Head belonging In this Act the Bishops are not restored to Benefices that are not of Cure but to these which have a particular Cure and therefore His Majesty Confirms all Dispositions or other Rights made of Abbacies Priories or other Benefices not being Bishopricks made or Confi●med at or before July 1587. they paying the Greslum appointed by that Act to the Bishop within Year and Day There is likewise reserved by this Act all Feus lawfully set and Confirmed before the Act of Annexation which was in the year foresaid and all Patronages of Kirks pertaining formerly to them Disponed by the lawful Titular and the Kings Majesty and Ratifi'd in Parliament which extends as well to the Patronages of Mensal Kirks as of Kirks which are of the Bishops presentation March 25. 1631. and albeit regulariter confirmatio nihil novi juris tribuit yet hoc casu supplet omnes alios desectus for by the former Practique it is found that alienations of Patronages even of Mensal Kirks are valide if made as said is by the lawful Titular though not made by him with the consent of the most part of the Chapter for this Act requires that it be made by the lawful Titular but there is no mention therein of the consent of the Chapter By the Act of Annexation in anno 1587. the whole Superiorities of all Kirk-lands being annexed to the Crown it was therefore necessary that by

secured notwithstanding of the forefaulting of their Superiors yet therefore regulariter the Sub-vassals Right falls to the King by the forefaulture of his Superior or his own forefaulture and that not as Caduciary for then it would only fall to him with the burden of all Rights granted by the Vassal But it falls to the King qua superior so that he is not obliged to acknowledge any Rights except they be Confirmed by himself this was debated in the case of General Dalȝel contra Lady Caldwall Nota The said 201 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. appoints this Act to be delet out of the Records of Parliament and this has been design'd oft-times to prevent our taking abrogated Acts for Acts in force but yet they are still Printed and some think this necessary because men argue oft from abrogated Acts as from this Act in the said case of the Lady Caldwal ALL Monks with us were called Friers from the French word Frere which signifies a Brother The Religious Women were called Nunnes from the Latin word Nonna which signifies a sacred Virgin THe Lands holding of Friers or Nuns are by this Act declared to hold of the King and all the Lands of Monks and Nuns are by the 29 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. annexed to the Crown quoad their Temporality and though thereafter many of these Benefices were erected in favours of Laick persons Yet by the 14 Act Par. 1 Ch. 1. The Superiority of all Lands belonging to Abbacies Priories and other Benefices belong to the King THis Act is Explain'd in the Act 36. and is drawn back to all Rights made even prior to this Act by the 65 Act 5 Par. Ja. 6. which is a singular Instance of drawing back Acts prior to the dates THese Acts are Explain'd in the Observations upon the third Parliament of Queen Mary King JAMES the sixth Parl. 3. THese Acts of this Parliament are Explain'd in my Criminal Treatise tit Heresie Nota That by the Act 45 Arch-bishops c. were to be punished being found negligent by the General Assembly of the Kirk the Bishops before the Year 1606. being but Titular Bishops and subject to the General Assembly and were to be deprived by them as is clear also by the 46 Act of this Parliament By the 46 Act it is also observable that all the Church-men were then only to give their Oath for acknowledging and recognoscing His Majesty and His Authority the Oath of Supremacy having come in only by the 1 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6. By this Act also non-residence is declared unlawful and is yet a cause of Deprivation except it be dispensed with the habilis modus whereof is by a Letter from the King BY the 72 Act Par. 9 Q. Mary the Minister was to have the Parson or Vicars Manse or so much thereof as should be sufficient for him and no Kirk mans Manse or Gleib could be feu'd yet an Heretor to whom a Vicars Gleib was feu'd a year before that Act was allow'd repetition Feb. 12. 1635. Nota. This Decision is otherwise related by mistake in the observ on the said Act. The Manse comes from the Latin Word Manere vid. Seldens History of Tithes pag. 52. By it we understand the Ministers Dwelling-house and if the Parson or Vicar had a Dwelling-house or Manse it belonged to the Minister but if there was none of these no other House could be design'd though it stood within the precincts of an Abbacy February 11 1631. Minister of Innerkeithing contra John Keir If there be no such Parson or Vicars Manse the Heretors must build one by the 31 Act of Parliament 1644. but thereafter by the 21 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. The value is declar'd to be from 500 merks to 1000 pounds so that the Minister may build a Manse to himself and he or his Executors will get repetition of what he bestows in building not exceeding 1000 pounds but if the Minister build only to the value of 500 merks he will not have action against the Parochioners for more though not exceeding 1000 pounds upon pretence that he might have built to that value January 8. 1670. Charters contra the Parochioners of Curry Where it was also found that the Reparation or Building of the Manse affects not singular Successors and is not debitum sundi By that Act likewise it was found that since Manses are ordained to be built by the Heretors that therefore Liferenters are not lyable which Decision may be very dangerous to Ministers since it may oftimes disappoint or at least for many Years suspend their Relief as for Instance if a Father should denude himself of his Estate in favours of his Son an Infant reserving only his own Liferent and it may be doubted whether such Liferenters per reservationem may not be lookt upon as Heretors in this as they are in some other cases and yet though Liferenters were not bound to build Manses yet they were found lyable to repair them these being but minores impensae which required to be presently done but neither Heretors nor Liferenters will be oblig'd to pay what is to be bestow'd upon Building or Repairing nor to stent themselves for that effect if they have materials of their own It has been also found that Manses are to be built and repaired where they were burnt or wasted casu fortuito A Gleib is that portion of Land that is to belong to the Minister Gleba terrae or a little piece Land and is by this Act to comprehend four Aikers of arable Land or 16 soums Grass where there is no arable Land Act 7 Par. 18 Ja. 6. These four Aikers are to be design'd out of Lands formerly belonging to the Parson or Vicar and if there be none such they are to be design'd out of Abbots Prioresses Bishop Friers or any other Kirk-land lying within the Bounds of the Paroch Act 161 Par. 13 Ja. 6. which order is exactly to be observed in the way set down by this Act as Dury observes July 13 1636. Halyburton contra Paterson yet I find that Bishops Lands were design'd before Abbots Lands because that Bishops have greater interest in the Cure and albeit it may seem that the designing the most ewest or nearest Lands to the Manse for a Gleib be in favours of the Minister and for his ease yet the Lordsfound a Designation null at the instance of the Heretor whose Lands were designed because there were other Lands nearer to the Manse for else any Heretors Lands within the Paroch might be designed for a Manse out of prejudice By the 116 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. It is ordained that Ministers who are provided to Churchs where there was no Parson or Vicar formerly such as Cathedral Kirks or Abbacies shall have a sufficient Manse within the precinct of the Cathedral or Abbay except the Heretors of the precinct provide them to as good a Manse and as commodious These Designations are to be expede according to